Re: Basic question?What 's the key if there 's no FD(Functional Dependencies)?

NENASHI, Tegiri wrote:
[...]
> There is better thing for database abstraction. Theory of categories is
> very good for abstraction. Its better than sets because you do not
> need to think of not important details. Category theory and relational
> theory is like algebra and multiplication table. Do you want to use
> algebra or still arithmetic ?

That does not make any obvious sense. What specific advantages that "the theory of categories" might have in comparison to the relational model do you have in mind ? Are you familiar with relational database theory and implementations ? Besides, it's not "the theory of categories" but "category theory" assuming we are talking about the same thing.

>
> The theory of categories unites object databases, relational database,
> functional model, NIAM. It replaces theory of sets as fundamental
> theory also.

Do you mean that category theory can be used as foundations instead of set theory ? That's a very controversial statement, and it would be probably safe to say that the majority of mathematicians do not support an idea like that. I am not sure you are qualified to make statements like "It replaces theory of sets". Replaces how exactly ?

>
>
> --
>
> Tegi
>
Received on Fri Nov 03 2006 - 19:35:33 CET